N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DITEC H FINANC IAL LLC , FKA Gre e n Tre e Se rvic ing, LLC ; FEDER A L NATIONAL M OR TGAGE ASSOC IATION,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. PAR ADISE SPR INGS ONE HOM EOW

N ER S ASSOC IATION, AKA Para dise Springs One ,

De fe nda n t,
and R OB ER T C . WANG; ANNAB EL E. B ARB ER , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 18-16406

D.C . No. 2:16-c v-02900-APG-GW F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED MAR 31 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M arc h 27, 2020 ** La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B YB EE, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts R obe rt W a

n g a nd Anna be l B arbe r a

p pe a l the distric t c ourt’ s fina l judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e s Dite c h Fina nc ia l LLC and Fe de ra l Nationa l M ortga ge Assoc iation (Fa nnie M a e ). B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s, we do not re c i te the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. Appe lla nts a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by a ddre ssing Appe lle e s’ quie t title c la im on the m e rits be c a

use (1) tha

t c la im is duplic ative of the dism isse d wrongful fore c losure c la im , (2) Appe lle e s la c ke d “ a ny inte re st in theprope rty ,” (3) the c la i m is untim e ly unde r a

thre e -y e ar statute of lim i tations, a nd (4) Appe lle e s la c ke d Artic le III sta

nding. The se argum e n ts a re unpe rsua sive
. 1. A c la im

to quie t title is wholly

inde pe nde nt of a

wrongful fore c losure c la im
. Se e Mc K n ight Family

, L.L.P. v . Ade

pt Mgmt. Se rv

s. , 310 P.3d 555, 559 (Nev. 2013). The form e r a sks “ t he c ourt to de te rm ine who holds supe rior titleto a

la nd pa rc e l,” whe re a s the l atte r “ c ha lle nge s the a uthority be hind thefore c losure , not the fore c losure a c t

itse lf.” Id. Through the ir quie t titlec la i m , Appe l le e s se e k to

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2e sta

blish tha t the y c ontinue to hold a

va lid inte re st in theprope rty , irre spe c tive of the p roprie ty

of the fore c losure sa le . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not err by tre ating Appe lle e s’ quie t titleand wrongful fore c losure c l a im s se p a rate ly
. 2. C ontra

ry to Appe lla

nts’ argum e nt, Appe lle e s do ha ve an inte re st in the prope rty . Ordina

rily , a fore c losure sa le of a

prope rty initia te d by a hom e owne rs
a ssoc iation (HOA) tha

t ha s a supe rpriority

lie n on the prope rty

e xtinguishe s a ll

“ othe r subordina

te inte re sts in the

prope rty .” Shadow

W ood Home o w ne rs Ass’n, Inc
. v . N .Y. C mty . Banc orp, Inc
. , 366 P.3d 1105, 1116 (Ne v . 2016). B ut whe n, a s he re , the Fe de ra l Housing Fina nc e Age nc y ha s a

n inte re st in a

prope rty , Ne va da ’ s supe rpriority

lie n la w is pre e m

p te d, suc h

tha t fore c losure will not e xtinguish the Age nc y ’ s inte re s t. Se e Be re zov sk y v . Moniz , 869 F.3d 923, 930–33 (9th C ir. 2017); 12 U.S.C . § 4617(j)(3). Thus, the fore c losure sa le on the prope rty he re did not
e xtinguish Appe lle e s’ inte re st in theprope rty . 3. Appe lla

nts c onte nd tha

t the thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita t ions a pplic a b le to wrongful fore c losure c la im s ba rs the quie t titlec la im . As note d a bove , a wrongful fore c losure c l a im

is e ntire l y

inde pe nde nt of a quie t titlec la im . Thus, thewrongful fore c losure c l a im ’ s lim ita tions pe riod doe s not a

pply to Appe lle e s’ quie t title
c la im . Appe lla

nts urge us to de c ide whe t he r the fe de ra l six-y e ar statute of lim ita tions or Ne va da ’ s five -y e a r statute of lim ita

tions a pplie s. W e ne e d not
3re solve this issue , howe ve r, a s the pa rtie s a gre e tha

t Appe lle e s’ c om

pla int wa s file d within fivey e ars of the fore c losure sa le . As a re sult, thequie t title c la im is tim e ly unde r e ithe r statute of lim i tations. 4. Fina lly , Appe lla

n t s a rgue tha t Appe lle e s la c k sta

nding to a s se rt the quie t title
c la im be c a use one of the de fe nda

nts, Pa ra dise Springs One HOA (Para dise ), no longe r ha d a

n inte re st in theprope rty

whe n the c om

pla int wa s file d. W e re

je c t this
argum e nt. The sta

nding inquiry

foc use s on a pla intiff’ s inte re sts, not a de fe nda n t’ s. Se e Valle

y Forge C hristian C

oll. v . Ams. Unite d for Se

paration of C hurc h & State

, Inc
. , 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (the sta n ding a na ly sis a pplie s to

“ the pa rty who invoke s the c ourt’ s a uthority ” ). W

h e the r Para dise ha d a

n inte re st in the p rope rty

is irre le va

nt to Appe lle e s’ Artic l e III sta nding. Eve n if Pa

ra dise ha s no inte re st, Appe lle e s the m s e lve s c le arly sat isfy Artic le III’ s sta

n ding
re quire m e nts. To the e xte nt Appe lla

nts a re arguing tha

t the distric t c ourt la c ke d

subje c tm atte r jurisdic tion be c a

u se the re wa s no c a s e or c ontrove rsy unde r Artic le III, we find tha t unpe rsua sive . Appe lle e s a sse rte d the c la im to quie t titlea ga inst both Para dise and Appe lla

n ts. As the purporte d c urre nt owne rs of the prope rty , Appe l la n ts ha ve an inte re st a dve rse to Appe lle e s tha t is suffic ie n t to sa

tisfy Artic l e III’ s c a se -or-c ontrove rsy

re quire m e nt.
4AFFIRM E D.

5